Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Are you saying SBW isn't pretty?
Reds 2013
- Thread starter MrTimms
- Start date
- Status
Are you saying SBW isn't pretty?
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
maybe he has changed teams, seen the photos of him in a hot tub recently?
Sir Arthur Higgins
Dick Tooth (41)
I can't see quade getting dropped. he was hardly the worst in the team last night. but, i can't see him even making the 23 for the lions tests on current form.
i can barely see beale for that matter.
i can barely see beale for that matter.
Rebel rouser
Ted Fahey (11)
Just a random thought, what ever happened to Van Humphries? Is he still in the reds squad, or put out to pasture? Not suggesting they need him on the park at the moment, but I always liked the guy, especially after his famous 'speech'. Maybe that little rev up was what the reds were missing this weekend 
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
^^^ IMHO, On Field leadership has been missing from Camp Red this year.
No one has really stepped up to fill Big Kev's shoes.
At the risk of receiving incoming flames, the Queensland stereotype, like the Darkness, responds well to Alpha Male leadership that can appeal to the pride in the tribe (and the "brand").
NSW players seem to need more than "have some pride in your jumper" motivation to do well. A big weakness.
No one has really stepped up to fill Big Kev's shoes.
At the risk of receiving incoming flames, the Queensland stereotype, like the Darkness, responds well to Alpha Male leadership that can appeal to the pride in the tribe (and the "brand").
NSW players seem to need more than "have some pride in your jumper" motivation to do well. A big weakness.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
The type of woman he needs he wouldn't have. Just sayin.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Quite true, and I suspect not many of those women would have him.
emuarse
Chilla Wilson (44)
The ones I know would probably take all of the team!
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
The hard truth is that since July 2011, the Reds have been in decline, and the appalling standard of lethargic and highly error-strewn play vs the Force just bookended the transition from champions to a team that has lost attention to execution basics and tough self-honesty and analysis as the core of a healthy culture.
By focussing upon individual player flaws and 'silver bullet' theories that our best players returning are the sure answer, we are all avoiding the obvious:
Since July 2011, the Reds had to keep meaningfully improving in all skill areas and as a team so as to retain a highly competitive position in relation to numerous other teams who where, like the Brumbies, Chiefs, Blues, Tahs, investing in better coaching personnel to improve their fortunes . Most of these investments have clearly paid off, and we thus have a far more competitive Super15 in 2013 than we had in 2011 as all the aforementioned teams were in various states of bumbling mediocrity. Sustained annual improvement of total team skill is the only strategy that builds the chance of regular success. The Reds' 2012 aspirations of 'dynasty building' and 'when greatness calls' could have the resonance of genuineness if the team remained intensely determined to improve in all facets, and was coached to a standard and with a mindset designed to secure that improvement.
However, in no discernable area of core skill or general play have the 2011 Reds been improved upon by March 2013. None. Worse, their sophistication and excellence of execution in attack (their justified 2011 trademark) has markedly deteriorated as demonstrated in numerous ways, by tries scored per game coupled with a woeful tendency to handling errors and truly poor basics (like accurate passing under pressure) at crucial moments, confirms the fact. Yes, injuries in 2012 were a legitimate deteriorating factor, but they nonetheless masked deteriorating underlying standards, execution complacencies (or over-confidence) and technical flaws that were to be clearly exposed in the bad loss the Sharks in July 2012.
We have played only one genuinely excellent game vs top quality competition since July 2011. Vs the Chiefs in May 2012. That is all. And that is not enough to in any way live up to the sloganeering of 'when greatness calls, we will respond'. When you go with that type of hairy-chested marketing, routinely you have to deliver sustained and improved standards of excellence. We have not. Rather, our coaching staff and management far too quickly believed that delegated systems and 'director of coaching' dynasty-type-building initiatives were the order of the day to consolidate the heights of 2011, vs intensive investment in a more sensible, and more humble, but far higher yielding, objective: namely to simply improve the total skill level of the Reds by (say) 15% per year, and thus to sustain a real hold on the team's comparative competitive excellence. It's repetitive victory through deep skill development that builds Crusader-like dynasties, not aspirational slogans.
Regular posters will know of my long-held conviction that success in elite rugby is largely determined by the calibre of the totality of coaching and technical support resources deployed to, inter alia, team design, shrewd tactical innovation, culture and skill development. In early 2012, Link and the QRU made a massive call in dramatically re-designing the Reds' coaching hierarchy with the central appointment of new L-plated Head Coach possessing few demonstrated achievements in elite rugby, appointing no specialist defence coach, sacking 'Chook' Fowler (now at the Force btw), appointing a relatively unknown scrum coach, no new forwards coach or kicking skills coach, and so on.
Many posters here will think none of these changes are especially relevant, but I ask this, as but one good question: why is it so that the Chiefs and Brumbies can start their Day One S15 seasons with absolute fervour and execution excellence and, as in 2012, by 2013 rounds 3-5 we are still talking about 'not getting into top gear yet' and Link is starting to talk of 'I am waiting for the whole team to fire' etc. Well, whose job but the coaches is it to get them to fire, to get them into an immediate top gear of playing and skills excellence?
At the very best what can be said is that Link's 2013 coaching group is, to this point, very far from delivering improvements to the Reds' standards of play over 2011. The March 16, 2013 version of Reds were totally outclassed in intensity, skill and discipline at home by a Force lacking Sharpe, Pocock, Cummins and Hodgson. The Reds level of handling errors and unnecessary penalty gifts was of a very low standard exacerbated by a Cooper that appears more indulged than re-built. This team is demonstrably a shadow of its 2011 self.
Something serious has gone wrong with the culture and mental hardness of our Reds team, and our coaching group is at least in part responsible. We will find out soon enough if we can rebuild around a discovery of what made us genuinely excellent in 2011, or fall into the damaging blackness of having to confront the truth that when another chance at greatness really did call, in fact we have not known how to execute the right response to sustain it.
By focussing upon individual player flaws and 'silver bullet' theories that our best players returning are the sure answer, we are all avoiding the obvious:
Since July 2011, the Reds had to keep meaningfully improving in all skill areas and as a team so as to retain a highly competitive position in relation to numerous other teams who where, like the Brumbies, Chiefs, Blues, Tahs, investing in better coaching personnel to improve their fortunes . Most of these investments have clearly paid off, and we thus have a far more competitive Super15 in 2013 than we had in 2011 as all the aforementioned teams were in various states of bumbling mediocrity. Sustained annual improvement of total team skill is the only strategy that builds the chance of regular success. The Reds' 2012 aspirations of 'dynasty building' and 'when greatness calls' could have the resonance of genuineness if the team remained intensely determined to improve in all facets, and was coached to a standard and with a mindset designed to secure that improvement.
However, in no discernable area of core skill or general play have the 2011 Reds been improved upon by March 2013. None. Worse, their sophistication and excellence of execution in attack (their justified 2011 trademark) has markedly deteriorated as demonstrated in numerous ways, by tries scored per game coupled with a woeful tendency to handling errors and truly poor basics (like accurate passing under pressure) at crucial moments, confirms the fact. Yes, injuries in 2012 were a legitimate deteriorating factor, but they nonetheless masked deteriorating underlying standards, execution complacencies (or over-confidence) and technical flaws that were to be clearly exposed in the bad loss the Sharks in July 2012.
We have played only one genuinely excellent game vs top quality competition since July 2011. Vs the Chiefs in May 2012. That is all. And that is not enough to in any way live up to the sloganeering of 'when greatness calls, we will respond'. When you go with that type of hairy-chested marketing, routinely you have to deliver sustained and improved standards of excellence. We have not. Rather, our coaching staff and management far too quickly believed that delegated systems and 'director of coaching' dynasty-type-building initiatives were the order of the day to consolidate the heights of 2011, vs intensive investment in a more sensible, and more humble, but far higher yielding, objective: namely to simply improve the total skill level of the Reds by (say) 15% per year, and thus to sustain a real hold on the team's comparative competitive excellence. It's repetitive victory through deep skill development that builds Crusader-like dynasties, not aspirational slogans.
Regular posters will know of my long-held conviction that success in elite rugby is largely determined by the calibre of the totality of coaching and technical support resources deployed to, inter alia, team design, shrewd tactical innovation, culture and skill development. In early 2012, Link and the QRU made a massive call in dramatically re-designing the Reds' coaching hierarchy with the central appointment of new L-plated Head Coach possessing few demonstrated achievements in elite rugby, appointing no specialist defence coach, sacking 'Chook' Fowler (now at the Force btw), appointing a relatively unknown scrum coach, no new forwards coach or kicking skills coach, and so on.
Many posters here will think none of these changes are especially relevant, but I ask this, as but one good question: why is it so that the Chiefs and Brumbies can start their Day One S15 seasons with absolute fervour and execution excellence and, as in 2012, by 2013 rounds 3-5 we are still talking about 'not getting into top gear yet' and Link is starting to talk of 'I am waiting for the whole team to fire' etc. Well, whose job but the coaches is it to get them to fire, to get them into an immediate top gear of playing and skills excellence?
At the very best what can be said is that Link's 2013 coaching group is, to this point, very far from delivering improvements to the Reds' standards of play over 2011. The March 16, 2013 version of Reds were totally outclassed in intensity, skill and discipline at home by a Force lacking Sharpe, Pocock, Cummins and Hodgson. The Reds level of handling errors and unnecessary penalty gifts was of a very low standard exacerbated by a Cooper that appears more indulged than re-built. This team is demonstrably a shadow of its 2011 self.
Something serious has gone wrong with the culture and mental hardness of our Reds team, and our coaching group is at least in part responsible. We will find out soon enough if we can rebuild around a discovery of what made us genuinely excellent in 2011, or fall into the damaging blackness of having to confront the truth that when another chance at greatness really did call, in fact we have not known how to execute the right response to sustain it.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I had a good chat to Ben on Sat night - great guy by the way!!! He confirmed 2 weeks to go on his calf. His head is fine. He sounded very eager to get back out there.
Man, that's just blatant name dropping!
emuarse
Chilla Wilson (44)
The above from Redshappy is a good in depth critique of the Reds, and probably should be pinned up on their notice board for all to see.
What is exasperating is that when the Reds won in 2011, there was so much confidence for the future as we had a young side coming on.
Where I am particularly disappointed this year is the fact that we have a back line that is so talented, but who can't find their way to combining and getting tries.
As Redhappy suggests , this to me reflects coaching deficits rather than player attitude.
Not pressing the panic button yet, but if things don't improve then heads should roll - and I'm not talking about players.
It is more than about the loss to the Force last weekend, though that game puts into some definition where the Reds problems lie.
What is exasperating is that when the Reds won in 2011, there was so much confidence for the future as we had a young side coming on.
Where I am particularly disappointed this year is the fact that we have a back line that is so talented, but who can't find their way to combining and getting tries.
As Redhappy suggests , this to me reflects coaching deficits rather than player attitude.
Not pressing the panic button yet, but if things don't improve then heads should roll - and I'm not talking about players.
It is more than about the loss to the Force last weekend, though that game puts into some definition where the Reds problems lie.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Has anyone heard if Quirk was cited or the Yellow card deemed enough?
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
I'd be surprised if the Match reviewers thought it warranted more than the punishment awarded by the referee at the time.
- Status